That's an interesting proposal, but it might be pointless. I believe that once the LAUNCH buttons is pressed, you're committed, even if the game is set to speed 0.

PoE (aka ivanmoe)

MarkShot -> RE: @Admin - Wishlist (6/14/2007 3:03:47 AM)

I am not thinking of editting them. But I want to know things like what squadrons were committed to what mission. When will the planes hit the target. When will they recover. Etc ... All that information is lost once you click on launch.

Prince of Eckmühl -> RE: @Admin - Wishlist (6/14/2007 4:14:51 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: MarkShot

I am not thinking of editting them. But I want to know things like what squadrons were committed to what mission. When will the planes hit the target. When will they recover. Etc ... All that information is lost once you click on launch.

I'm gonna shoot myself, if I'm wrong about this, but I think that if you place you're cursor over the little white plane icons and the game is running nice and slow, a tool-tips will pop up telling what it contains, the squadron info. If you left click on the icon, it'll give you more detail on a scroll screen to your left, it's ETR, for instance.

PoE (aka ivanmoe)

MarkShot -> RE: @Admin - Wishlist (6/14/2007 4:42:01 AM)

Nice try! Works well for search aircraft, but not for strike flights. It sounds like a possible buglette. :)

Are you one of the beta testers? Also, are you the same Moe I knew from MMG?

Prince of Eckmühl -> RE: @Admin - Wishlist (6/14/2007 5:35:23 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: MarkShot Are you one of the beta testers? Also, are you the same Moe I knew from MMG?

Nah, my playtest days are at an end, me thinks.

Yes, I tested for MMG, along with three other developers and Nvidia.

I am the happiest of civilians, btw.

A fella tends to lose his voice when he's too closely associated with (a) game(s).

I enjoy my independence and freedom to say what I believe needs to be said.

Thanks for asking, [:)]

PoE (aka ivanmoe)

CptWasp -> RE: @Admin - Wishlist (6/14/2007 4:32:01 PM)

As it was asked in another post:

- an option to see the result of the air attack only at the end of the animation (or real-time during the animation!)

MarkShot -> RE: @Admin - Wishlist (6/16/2007 1:08:34 AM)

Realistic carrier air operation times for human and AI carrier/fields, see:

On one level, I believe that the game is what it is, and I'm willing to embrace it.

On the other hand , if CaW is gonna be all that it can be, I believe that the developer should go high-fidelity by offering command options to players as they attempt to experience the "real deal" of commanding these forces. I can think of no better way to do it than by introducing doctrinal asymmetries into the game, not ones based on combat hardware, but those based on the different ways of conducting warfare as waged by both sides.

Examples:

1) An option should be incorporated such that the IJN player, AI or human, use cohesive strikes, as this was so central to their operational doctrine, one that was slavishly adhered to by everyone from Yamamoto, to Genda and Nagumo, one that offered the IJN the best opportunity to mete out a decisive defeat while incurring the fewest casualties.

2) An option should be incorporated such that the IJN player, AI or human, use auxiliary aircraft and/or land-based a/c to conduct searches. Again this is a doctrinal matter. Using valuable strike assets to run "routine" searches would undermine the Kido Butai's ability to deal a Tsushima-style, knockout-blow.

3) An option should be incorporated such that Allied player be incapable of conducting the sort of EFFECTIVE, cohesive strike that the KB had mastered, throughout 1942. While very effective on the inter-squadron level, USN intra-squadron training was simply insufficient to pull this off.

4) An option should be incorporated such that flight operations on carriers of both sides be disrupted by the combat cycle of CAP, the practical affect of which should be that a deck-load strike can't be spotted and launched from a deck that is under attack. Flight logs from air-groups of the period indicate that the ability of these vessels to simultaneously manage both CAP and launch big-wing attacks against enemies was simply non-existent.

These are just a few ideas. I raise them, again, because I think that this was the kind stuff that was weighing on a Task Force commander's mind when he was making his decisions. And I think that's where we all want the game headed.

PoE (aka ivanmoe)

CommC -> RE: @Admin - Wishlist (6/16/2007 7:49:35 AM)

I would like to see a replay feature, where the player could review the game with VCR type controls to fast forward or slow it down, etc.

LarryP -> RE: Wishlist thread (6/16/2007 10:05:02 PM)

I would like to see an option to have the Online Orders Displays keep popping up at the last place I moved them. I get tired of every time I click a TG the OOD pops up close to the group and covers the area I want to see. I move it out of my way and the next time I select the TG it pops back up on top of things. There could even be an option to keep them popping up off the map at the bottom right where it is empty. [&:] [&o]

freeboy -> RE: Wishlist thread (6/16/2007 10:27:38 PM)

OK, one the ability to have greater randomness, in reallife carrier admirals did not know for sure what was over the horizon, creating a randomization rutine would be nice.

The ability to recall strikes

MarkShot -> RE: Wishlist thread (6/16/2007 11:13:02 PM)

There is a recall button on the carrier OPs screen. However, I think it recalls every strike mission for that carrier.

GoodGuy -> RE: Wishlist thread (6/17/2007 1:34:39 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: LarryP

I would like to see an option to have the Online Orders Displays keep popping up at the last place I moved them. I get tired of every time I click a TG the OOD pops up close to the group and covers the area I want to see......[]

It's already in there, if you click on the symbol next to the "X" (the left hand symbol, i don't recall the button's help text) it will remember the window location and open it exactly at the last spot u moved it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Prince of Eckmühl

On one level, I believe that the game is what it is, and I'm willing to embrace it.

On the other hand , if CaW is gonna be all that it can be, I believe that the developer should go high-fidelity by offering command options to players as they attempt to experience the "real deal" of commanding these forces. I can think of no better way to do it than by introducing doctrinal asymmetries into the game, not ones based on combat hardware, but those based on the different ways of conducting warfare as waged by both sides.

Examples:

2) An option should be incorporated such that the IJN player, AI or human, use auxiliary aircraft and/or land-based a/c to conduct searches. Again this is a doctrinal matter. Using valuable strike assets to run "routine" searches would undermine the Kido Butai's ability to deal a Tsushima-style, knockout-blow.

Not sure if I'm with you on that one. Aren't there land-based searches on IJN as well? Let's say the scenario where u can control the US bomber squadrons at Port Moresby. Once you select the base, you can turn on/off the arrows (seach directions), since Port Moresby has a number of Catalina search planes. I've played IJN only one or 2 times yet, but forgot to check if their landbases have any search planes. There are no jap (land-based) search options?

On a sidenote.... The US and Brits had looooooooong-range search planes (land-based) stationed around the Atlantic ocean, where the US employed Liberator B24 planes, and the Brits probably Mosquitos and/or Lancasters. Question, weren't these types of aircrafts used in the Pacific theater as well? If so, why didn't they make it into the game? Afaik, the IJ air force had a similar aircraft (bomber)

quote:

3) An option should be incorporated such that Allied player be incapable of conducting the sort of EFFECTIVE, cohesive strike that the KB had mastered, throughout 1942. While very effective on the inter-squadron level, USN intra-squadron training was simply insufficient to pull this off.

Afaik, intra-squadron training was very poor in the beginning when new/green pilots had to be prepared for the real thing quickly, training was just based on a bit of targeting practice and formation flights, partially, and lacked training of squad-coordination. On the other hand, Japan had a big problem as they could not compensate the high amount of killed/lost pilots in later stages of the war, where training was reduced to a minimum to make sure the pilots could be sent to the front lines asap. Also, pretty green pilots (rather soldiers maybe) were selected to conduct kamikaze runs in 1945. I've also read that a number of veteran/very successful pilots were ordered to refrain from considering kamikaze-runs, as they were needed for training/leading new pilots, unless their situation was hopeless.

Anyway, the effectiveness of the IJN pilots in late 1944/45 should be altered in order to reflect this. Is that present in the game already, or is it part of the scenario design? If not it should be implemented, using an algorythm, as generalization (IJN pilots weren't all green in late 1944, for example, but it was a big issue) wouldn't do any good.

Good points, I like your stuff, POE.

Prince of Eckmühl -> RE: Wishlist thread (6/17/2007 4:08:42 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: GoodGuy Not sure if I'm with you on that one. Aren't there land-based searches on IJN as well? Let's say the scenario where u can control the US bomber squadrons at Port Moresby. Once you select the base, you can turn on/off the arrows (seach directions), since Port Moresby has a number of Catalina search planes. I've played IJN only one or 2 times yet, but forgot to check if their landbases have any search planes. There are no jap (land-based) search options?

On a sidenote.... The US and Brits had looooooooong-range search planes (land-based) stationed around the Atlantic ocean, where the US employed Liberator B24 planes, and the Brits probably Mosquitos and/or Lancasters. Question, weren't these types of aircrafts used in the Pacific theater as well? If so, why didn't they make it into the game? Afaik, the IJ air force had a similar aircraft (bomber)

The primary tool of IJN maritime search was the seaplane and/or floatplane. Many of these were single-engine types and were both shore and sea-based. The Mavis and Emily were large, four-engine flying boats that operated from flying-boat basins, and yes, both had VERY long legs. These are included in CaW. It's worth noting that off-loading search chores from strike-aircraft was a central theme of IJN doctrine.

quote:

Afaik, intra-squadron training was very poor in the beginning when new/green pilots had to be prepared for the real thing quickly, training was just based on a bit of targeting practice and formation flights, partially, and lacked training of squad-coordination.

Actually, being simply TRAINED to U.S. standards wasn't as bad as you might think. IIRC, pilots were assigned to line squadrons after about two-hundred hours in the cockpit. This was true, even in the darkest days of 1942. While the training regime of the USN and USAAC couldn't produce the caliber of pilots that the axis "training grounds" of Spain and China did, it could produce a great number of good pilots, quickly.

quote:

On the other hand, Japan had a big problem as they could not compensate the high amount of killed/lost pilots in later stages of the war, where training was reduced to a minimum to make sure the pilots could be sent to the front lines asap. Also, pretty green pilots (rather soldiers maybe) were selected to conduct kamikaze runs in 1945. I've also read that a number of veteran/very successful pilots were ordered to refrain from considering kamikaze-runs, as they were needed for training/leading new pilots, unless their situation was hopeless.

Anyway, the effectiveness of the IJN pilots in late 1944/45 should be altered in order to reflect this. Is that present in the game already, or is it part of the scenario design? If not it should be implemented, using an algorythm, as generalization (IJN pilots weren't all green in late 1944, for example, but it was a big issue) wouldn't do any good.

Yeah, the Japanese simply didn't have the industrial base to fight a war of attrition with the U.S. and its allies, and the affects of chronic shortages could be felt in pilot training, too. And EVERYONE in a position to make a decision about the direction that their navy would go KNEW this. The result was a doctrine that can be traced back to Tsushima, one that stressed not only the need to strike decisive blows at the enemy, but to do it with little or no loss to themselves, to attack so efficiently as to overwhelm the enemy without the enduring the affects of attrition.

quote:

Good points, I like your stuff, POE.

Thanks. I try to be responsible in my criticism. In particular, I try to avoid stuff that I know would require some major rewrite of the game's code. I think that some of the items that I've suggested are changes that could be made (relatively) easily, perhaps even as selections in the options menu. I believe that it's worthwhile to have the game accurately depict differences in the operational methodology of the two sides because these were so central to the outcome of carrier battles.

We'll see, [;)]

PoE (aka ivanmoe)

default -> RE: Wishlist thread (6/17/2007 5:55:30 AM)

I don't know how easy this would be to implement, or if other players would agree that it is a desirable feature, but a simple graphic representation of a given surface unit's course and speed would be useful. For example, all units under the player's command, if in motion, would have an arrow emanating from them in the direction they are headed, perhaps with a number indicating their speed, and while we're wishing, a number indicating how old the last movement order issued is, in hours.

Something similar would be helpful for sighing reports, with estimated course arrows, and numbers indicating reported speed and age of the sighting - either as an average, or multiple arrows to refer to multiple sightings.

This would reduce the clicking, and allow the player to get a better overall sense of what is going on at any given time. Just an idea, I'm quite pleased with the game as is.

Al Boone -> RE: Wishlist thread (6/17/2007 6:04:17 AM)

Get rid of the map side views of the principal ship in a TF. Instead, print in quotes the main type of ship right after the TF number, eg TF17.2 (CV) or TF17.3 (BB). The map will be less cluttered, other important data will not be obscured and the sense of map distances and proportions will be enhanced and the map will be more attractive.

Adam Parker -> RE: Wishlist thread (6/17/2007 6:04:37 AM)

I'd like a "Resign Game" button.

I don't think it's there - but rather than playing a badly going scen to the end to get to check the victory stats it would be nice to resign a game early and be able to do so.

I like to see what I've actually sunk at a scen's end as I play with FOW on [:)]

AVisme -> RE: Wishlist thread (6/17/2007 6:17:06 AM)

there is a resign button

click on save/end game tab in the bottom left of screen.

Adam Parker -> RE: Wishlist thread (6/17/2007 6:31:06 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: AVisme

there is a resign button

click on save/end game tab in the bottom left of screen.

Yes. I can confirm the button is clearly labelled "RESIGN". What a turkey I am.

Thanks AVisme [&o]

LarryP -> RE: Wishlist thread (6/17/2007 5:25:39 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: GoodGuy

quote:

ORIGINAL: LarryP

I would like to see an option to have the Online Orders Displays keep popping up at the last place I moved them. I get tired of every time I click a TG the OOD pops up close to the group and covers the area I want to see......[]

It's already in there, if you click on the symbol next to the "X" (the left hand symbol, i don't recall the button's help text) it will remember the window location and open it exactly at the last spot u moved it.

It's an anchor symbol and it's not quite what I wanted. Once you click the anchor then ALL of those dialog boxes open up in that same place. I wanted each to open at the last place I put them at individually. I program interfaces all the time and for a window to remember the last place it was is not hard to do.

Also once you click the anchor you cannot move the dialog at all until you reclick the anchor. I just wanted the dialog boxes to remember where they were put the last time and go there without a clickfest, like the Windows interface.

Prince of Eckmühl -> RE: Wishlist thread (6/18/2007 3:00:10 AM)

Include an option that will allow U.S. SBD to be assigned to CAP.

PoE (aka ivanmoe)

Gregor_SSG -> RE: @Admin - Wishlist (6/18/2007 4:57:47 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Prince of Eckmühl

On one level, I believe that the game is what it is, and I'm willing to embrace it.

On the other hand , if CaW is gonna be all that it can be, I believe that the developer should go high-fidelity by offering command options to players as they attempt to experience the "real deal" of commanding these forces. I can think of no better way to do it than by introducing doctrinal asymmetries into the game, not ones based on combat hardware, but those based on the different ways of conducting warfare as waged by both sides.

Examples:

1) An option should be incorporated such that the IJN player, AI or human, use cohesive strikes, as this was so central to their operational doctrine, one that was slavishly adhered to by everyone from Yamamoto, to Genda and Nagumo, one that offered the IJN the best opportunity to mete out a decisive defeat while incurring the fewest casualties.

2) An option should be incorporated such that the IJN player, AI or human, use auxiliary aircraft and/or land-based a/c to conduct searches. Again this is a doctrinal matter. Using valuable strike assets to run "routine" searches would undermine the Kido Butai's ability to deal a Tsushima-style, knockout-blow.

3) An option should be incorporated such that Allied player be incapable of conducting the sort of EFFECTIVE, cohesive strike that the KB had mastered, throughout 1942. While very effective on the inter-squadron level, USN intra-squadron training was simply insufficient to pull this off.

4) An option should be incorporated such that flight operations on carriers of both sides be disrupted by the combat cycle of CAP, the practical affect of which should be that a deck-load strike can't be spotted and launched from a deck that is under attack. Flight logs from air-groups of the period indicate that the ability of these vessels to simultaneously manage both CAP and launch big-wing attacks against enemies was simply non-existent.

These are just a few ideas. I raise them, again, because I think that this was the kind stuff that was weighing on a Task Force commander's mind when he was making his decisions. And I think that's where we all want the game headed.

PoE (aka ivanmoe)

1. Sorry, but there is no way we are going to enforce this on a human player. We've found, usually to our cost, that players react negatively to most forms of compulsion. You mention making it an option, but if you play the Japanese you can do this yourself if you see fit. If you play multiplayer as the US then it something that you would have to negotiate with the other player anyway. As for the AI, I believe that it prefers to do Cohesive strikes anyway, but I wouldn't like to hobble it by making it compulsory, as there are situations where a cohesive strike can't fly but a non-cohesive one can.

2. The search rouines will always use non strike aircraft first in conducting any search missions, so in a carrier TG the floatplanes carried by surface ships will be used first and strike planes only if necessary. If you manage your search sectors properly you shouldn't have too many problems.

3. Both sides had their problems in organising and controlling strikes. The Cohesive button is not a guarantee of a cohesive strike, variations can and do occur.

4. I don't know enough about the responses to an incoming strike to be able to answer this in detail, I'll leave it to Alex or Ian.

Gregor

Prince of Eckmühl -> RE: @Admin - Wishlist (6/18/2007 5:31:39 AM)

Thanks for responding Gregor,

I suggested the doctrine options for two reasons. First, my reading suggests that's the way operations were conducted through at least mid-1943. Second, I've done so out of a desire to see the game better balanced and have it generate results more in accord with the historical record.

Failing the incorporation of ANY such changes, I see two substantial flaws in the package. First the game will continue to be wildly unbalanced. Second, I believe that it perpetuates the myth that USN carrier forces were simply lucky and by all measures should have been massacred in these carrier vs carrier duels.

I realize that the IJN had a/c that were superior in the naval strike role and that it's pilots were artists of a sort in the use of those tools. Were that the only consideration, were USN doctrine identical to that of the IJN, THE LATTER WOULD HAVE INDEED PREVAILED, and no amout of luck would have saved the former.

Best wishes and good luck with the game!

PoE (aka ivanmoe)

Sean CAW -> RE: @Admin - Wishlist (6/18/2007 7:19:56 AM)

Two suggestions/bug fixes:

1) When a land-based squadron is totally destroyed, I'm finding that for some reason, I can't transfer in new squadrons to take its place. So if I fly in 10 squadrons to Guam, and they're all shot up attacking the US Carrier fleets in the Phillippine Sea scenario, I can end up with 10 squadrons containing zero active planes, so that I can't fly in 10 fresh squadrons from my Carriers or other land bases. IIRC, in the old CAW, any totally destroyed squadrons would be effectively wiped off the landbase roster, so you could replace them with new squadrons, up to the 10-squadron limit. It'd be great to be able to do the same here.

2) Last night, while playing that same Phillippine Sea scenario, I harassed the US fleet enough with my land based air attacks that a good number of US TGs attempted to flee off the board. However, I found that when one of my squadrons from Tinian caught a US TG just as it was heading off the eastern edge of the board, I was able to attack it in that "location" for the rest of the scenario. Even more interesting - when I was launching future strikes against that TG, I was also able to hit other US TGs that had previously fled through that spot in the grid. So I ended up hitting the US transports, which had fled the board days earlier. This seems like a definite bug, if you're trying to allow TGs to completely flee the battle. These poor guys couldn't flee, and I racked up hundreds of VPs sinking them left and right, when they should have been hundreds of miles away by that point...

That's all so far [:)]

Cheers!

1275psi -> Wind? (6/19/2007 3:43:06 PM)

it just struck me what this game is lacking, and really, its so core to carrier ops that with out it this game is never going to be realistic

Wind

Carriers must turn into wind to launch

Must be doing at least 20 knots across the deck to launch.

Must Hold that course into the wind for entire launch retrieve cycle.

OPS are too quick. In real life to launch and recover a strike you would have to cover 15 miles at least, at 30 knots, even more. several times I have avoided strikes by that amount.

WIND is EVERYTHING to CV ops This game needs to reflect this!

(still like the game but[:)])

1275psi -> RE: Wishlist thread (6/19/2007 3:46:10 PM)

LRCAP!

I want to be able to assign LRCAP!

Please![:'(]

GoodGuy -> RE: Wind? (6/19/2007 5:04:16 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: 1275psi

WIND is EVERYTHING to CV ops This game needs to reflect this!

(still like the game but[:)])

True. I second that.

LarryP -> RE: Wind? (6/19/2007 5:20:52 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: 1275psi

WIND is EVERYTHING to CV ops This game needs to reflect this!

Good observation, and it would sure make things tougher but more realistic. Maybe an option to have it or not have it. Personally I would click it OFF.

MarkShot -> RE: Wind? (6/19/2007 6:02:34 PM)

I thought the 20nm hex provides sufficient abstraction for this. You have the actual course at any give moment, but the player defines a base course.

Also, I thought turning into the wind is just an aid to ops, since I thought these ships could generate 20kts over the deck by sailing at flank speed.